Pax forces his way onto MEL tarmac

[aussie1234]

Just saw this on Paul Murray

Jetstar: Melbourne Airport experiences tarmac security breach (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/furious-passenger-caught-on-camera-attempting-to-gain-access-to-jetstar-plane/news-story/638179dcb981a53117407db56eebb2f2)

This is should be plastered all over the news.

How dare someone get out on the tarmac. Perhaps because flying is so common now, like catching a bus, and a lot to do with the Australian attitude against rules and authority, the general public don’t have respect for aircraft anymore. I’m constantly surprised how people treat aircraft with regard to leaving rubbish or putting their feet all over the seats. No way would you leave rubbish on the floor of someone $100,000 BMW but a $70 million aircraft. No worries.

Im glad more people are flying, more jobs, but have some respect people.

[KRviator]

It goes both ways...

The way some airlines treat the passengers who keep them in business, their luggage, or simply their schedules, why would anyone think this is an unusual occurrence? I spend more time in the air as SLF than I do commuting to the airport or to work when at work - so yes, a lot of people now do consider airlines as just another form of public transport. Though you'd find the type of bloke in the article would be the kind of muppet who would take a dump in ol' mates $100K BMW if he was late, or dropped him off on the wrong side of the road.

The concerning bit is how he managed to just barge through the gate and make it to the aircraft in the first instance. So much for 'security' - but don't worry, a few hundred million spent on domestic body-scanners will fix that!

[peuce]

I don't believe there is Security placed at boarding gates...only Airline Staff.

[zanzibar]

Passenger wasn't that clever by the looks of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the footage it appears that the rear door was open with the steps in place .................

[KRviator]

I don't believe there is Security placed at boarding gates...only Airline Staff.Agreed, but it shows that if a simple irate muppet can get onto the tarmac and upto L1 then the whole thing is a farce.

[airtags]

Door from terminal is swipe access only therefore the questions to be asked centre on boarding/flight closed procedures for ground/terminal staff. Also there's a need to re-think JQ's often illogical/inflexible positions that are designed to disempower and limited the decision making propensity of staff. I understand the lowest common denominator theory is a pathway for lower labour costs, but this often prevents common sense decisions being made.

My personal view is that if we haven't closed the a/c doors then its better to board a 'late to the gate' pax rather than have the ramp rummage around for 15 minutes finding bags to offload and delaying the other money paying pax who at the end of the day are customers/clients. Treat people with respect and a service culture and generally the behavioural response is positive - treat them poorly and they will have a lesser value/quality perception which is reflected in their behaviour.

AT

[Di_Vosh]

Channel 9 news last night mentioned that the aircraft in question was about to commence boarding. In that case, it's likely that the Terminal door was open, passengers queued up in preparation, etc. Therefore no great feat to jump the queue and run out onto the tarmac.

DIVOSH!

[Berealgetreal]

Security at boarding gates happens in most of the civilised world. Not here.

[*Lancer*]

Security at boarding gates happens in most of the civilised world. Not here.

Nor in the US or Europe :rolleyes:

[wiggy]

FWIW I’m sure if you folk regard the U.K. as being in Europe or not these days but generally there’s no security staff at most U.K. gates either, though doors to jetties are normally kept locked until boarding/pre-boarding commences...

Of course anyone at the gate probably has already been screened by security.

[cooperplace]

I hope they throw the book at him. Apart from roughing up the staff and potentially damaging the aircraft, he had a cigarette!

[Berealgetreal]

Might have changed but last time I travelled, security teams moved to the gate. Who cares anyway.

[Roller Merlin]

This clown had apparently been ejected for aggressive behaviour inside the terminal but then he managed to get back inside! Proceeded to a gate where he pushed over a staff member to get on the tarmac where he punched another. The crew held the door closed to keep him out.

[KRviator]

The crew held the door closed to keep him out.Should've re-armed the door...:E

[cattletruck]

This just proves the true value of having an ASIC card - only good for coffee discounts at participating airport cafes.

Apparently it wasn't even the bogan's flight.

[YPJT]

This just proves the true value of having an ASIC card - only good for coffee discounts at participating airport cafes.

Apparently it wasn't even the bogan's flight.
And the relevance of ASICs in this situation is?

[Piltdown Man]

Arming the door would not have helped. All modern aircraft disarm their slides when the door is opened from the outside.

But the real problem is not that the guy got onto the tarmac, it’s the fact he was allowed to remain in the terminal in the first place. This is because security at airports is a farce. It follows rules made by clowns to in attempt to appease an ignorant traveling who really don’t think about anything other than themselves.

The reality is that it is possible to get access to the apron virtually anywhere. Lockable doors, special codes, ID cards are little more than window dressing and a total waste of the travelling public’s money. Anyone who is determined enough can get airside, so why bother making in inconvenient for those who need access? And when these things do happen, they are not for baggage handlers to sort out nor the cabin crew on another flight. This guy was never going to get anywhere anyway. But trying to prevent him from doing so could easily get you hurt and/or damage aircraft doors. Play cool, try not to annoy idiots like these and wait a few minutes for the police. They are paid to get really heavy with people who are in the wrong place and have the equipment, training and authority to do so. Don’t get me wrong, I would happily knock his teeth down his throat if I need to, but playing is smart is generally a better option.

And we should also remember that the presence of security staff does not mean security, just additional costs to pass onto the travelling public. In the first place, they are not the highest paid employees therefore you will not get the most able. And considering that they are probably paid minimum wage, would take a beating for that? So why should you expect them to do so.

To expand the security thought process, consider this; UK prison security is considered to be some of toughest out there. But our prisons leak like sieves. Yet repeatedly mobile phones, SIM cards, drugs, weapons and firearms are found in epidemic proportions in British prisons. How on earth do they get there? First of all, prisoners do not care for rules or regulations. That is why they they are locked up. Yet exactly the same methodology but in a watered down version is used to ensure our safety at airports. Now, as far as I know, those with criminal intent will not follow the rules nor will they bother about the systems that exist to prevent them from carrying out their intent. They’ll circumvent everything placed in their path in their pursuit to do us harm. Fix prison security, learn from that and then apply those lessons to airports. Until then, just hope it’s not going to be a bad day for you.

PM

[cattletruck]

And the relevance of ASICs in this situation is?

Only good for coffee discounts at participating airport cafes.

[YPJT]

Piltdown Man, that would have to be one of the best analysis of the current security regime I have read in a long time.

[Nulli Secundus]

I blame Hollywood, Dumb and Dumber and that kid from Love Actually who jumped the airport gate chasing his sweetheart.

When asking for I.D, the second question has to be "............ Jim Carey's character ran and fell from an aerobridge. Can you name the movie?" If a person can.... our roving patrolmen need to be very suspicious! (NB: The author draws no link between the movie title and policy makers)

[Oakape]

Piltdown Man, that would have to be one of the best analysis of the current security regime I have read in a long time.

Except he is wrong about this! - Arming the door would not have helped. All modern aircraft disarm their slides when the door is opened from the outside.

Throws everything said into doubt when facts are wrong.

[morno]

I asked in another thread but no one answered my question.

If you think the current security is a farce, what do you propose in its place? Or do you think everyone should just be able to wander on in without being challenged?

[IsDon]

I asked in another thread but no one answered my question.

If you think the current security is a farce, what do you propose in its place? Or do you think everyone should just be able to wander on in without being challenged?

Interesting question. Yes, actually, having no security whatsoever would achieve the same outcome as the current theatre provides.

Think thats preposterous, then ask yourself, when was the last time you walked through a metal detector, or a multi hundred thousand dollar body scanner to get on a train, or go to a football match.

All of these are soft targets. Terrorists have targeted trains, busses, football matches, concerts basically anywhere people gather in large groups. Yes they’ve also targeted aircraft, but why are airports singled out when they are no more likely a terrorist target than any other event or form of public transport.

Somebody is making a fortune out of peddling irrational fear.

[GA Driver]

Except he is wrong about this! -
Arming the door would not have helped. All modern aircraft disarm their slides when the door is opened from the outside.

Throws everything said into doubt when facts are wrong.

No, that’s correct for an Airbus. Perhaps not all modern aircraft, but the aircraft in question and all others currently manufactured by airbus function this way.

[Di_Vosh]

Yes they’ve also targeted aircraft, but why are airports singled out when they are no more likely a terrorist target than any other event or form of public transport.

Not having a go at you personally, but it's comments like this that remind me why pilots should stick to flying aeroplanes.

There are plenty of reasons why airports and aeroplanes are high-value targets for terrorists. Have a read of the linked article.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/why-do-terrorists-target-airports-so-frequently/

In a nutshell, a successful terrorist attack at an airport means that a nation cannot provide security for it's own international gateway; one of the most important prestige items for any nation. People will stop coming, causing economic damage far in excess of the (already considerable) damage caused by the attack.

Further, the increased security measures required divert police, military, and other security actors from their previous tasks. If the terrorists have active members in that country, those members may have more freedom of movement and to act, because the forces that may have prevented them from acting have now been diverted into protecting the airport. So you now need more police, military, etc.

There is an extra economic cost of that extra airport security; some or all of which becomes permanent. The extra security emplaced AFTER an attack will always be significant, due in no small part to restore public (worldwide) confidence that you're going to prevent another attack.

Have a read of the article.

DIVOSH!

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Agree it's entirely the world we live in where people are encouraged to believe that they are deserving, special and VIP - all in the interests of getting them to hand over more money. Its convinced the muppets of the world that they are actually somehow special and the rules don't apply to him.

Flew SYD-MEL Friday and the muppet next to me clearly felt the same. Didn't believe the requirement to put phones in flight mode applied to him (was frustrated when he lost service and was no longer able to flip between apps every 5 seconds in some maniacal way), somehow managed to have his music so loud via his own earphones that I needed to get my earplugs out (even on climb) and didn't believe the seatbelt sign applied to him - cast it off whilst still on the high-speed taxiway after landing.

I reckon if CASA wanted to get a PR win from 95% of travelling passengers, they'd do a quick compliance check of phones after takeoff and seatbelts on taxi-in. Airlines would be able to stay arms length ("it was CASA, nothing to do with us") and maybe the travelling public would start paying attention to rules that might just save them when the time came....

/rant off

[Ascend Charlie]

A lot cheaper, more effective, but a quick way to inflame the Professionally Offended, would be to prohibit the Bearded Camel-Riders from going anywhere near an airport. There ain't many who aren't of the BC-R type who do that sort of stuff.

[Rated De]

Not having a go at you personally, but it's comments like this that remind me why pilots should stick to flying aeroplanes.

There are plenty of reasons why airports and aeroplanes are high-value targets for terrorists. Have a read of the linked article.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/why-do-terrorists-target-airports-so-frequently/

In a nutshell, a successful terrorist attack at an airport means that a nation cannot provide security for it's own international gateway; one of the most important prestige items for any nation. People will stop coming, causing economic damage far in excess of the (already considerable) damage caused by the attack.

Further, the increased security measures required divert police, military, and other security actors from their previous tasks. If the terrorists have active members in that country, those members may have more freedom of movement and to act, because the forces that may have prevented them from acting have now been diverted into protecting the airport. So you now need more police, military, etc.

There is an extra economic cost of that extra airport security; some or all of which becomes permanent. The extra security emplaced AFTER an attack will always be significant, due in no small part to restore public (worldwide) confidence that you're going to prevent another attack.

Have a read of the article.

DIVOSH!

All valid points.
One question though if we may?

If the risk is that obvious why is it that third party contractors and indeed some foreign owned companies actually screen at Australia's privatised airports?

[Piltdown Man]

Slightly off track, but I think it’s only the Boeing 737 that has a totally manually operated girt bar. Now let’s face it, they are not very modern are they. Their design dates back to 1964. So I’ll stand by my assertion.

PM

[Di_Vosh]

There ain't many who aren't of the BC-R type who do that sort of stuff.

Until whomever wants to do some damage shaves off his beard, wears a suit, and says all his prayers before arriving at the airport. Further, "BC-R" might be most of the current threat, but only a little over 20 years ago in the U.K it was the IRA and they used to detonate bombs in and around Britain on almost a monthly basis. FARC and Tamil Tigers also spring to mind as threats that have only diminished in the past few years.

If the risk is that obvious why is it that third party contractors and indeed some foreign owned companies actually screen at Australia's privatised airports?

Economic cost, and (possibly) the ability for an Australian based security company to have the scope, experience, and scalability to provide the level of security required at an airport. I'd need more information about your concerns to answer your question better. But in simple terms Chubb airport security costs a lot less than having the entire organisation run a-la the TSA in the U.S., for example. As far as motivation is concerned, I never seen any evidence that the $25.00 per hour Chubb employee takes his or her job any less seriously than the TSA employee.

DIVOSH!

[AerialPerspective]

FWIW I’m sure if you folk regard the U.K. as being in Europe or not these days but generally there’s no security staff at most U.K. gates either, though doors to jetties are normally kept locked until boarding/pre-boarding commences...

Of course anyone at the gate probably has already been screened by security.



My memory is that if you push hard enough you can open those swipe card operated doors. Security at every gate is unsustainable, we’re already getting closer to a Police State thanks to mega minister Mr Potato Head. As long as there are sufficient security personnel available to apprehend people like this that should be enough and regardless of how people are treated by an airline there is no excuse for the behavior of the passenger in this case.

[AerialPerspective]

This clown had apparently been ejected for aggressive behaviour inside the terminal but then he managed to get back inside! Proceeded to a gate where he pushed over a staff member to get on the tarmac where he punched another. The crew held the door closed to keep him out.

Small point but ‘tarmac’ is a road material... it’s called the ‘apron’... it may be covered in tarmac or concrete material but it’s an apron.

[AerialPerspective]

Door from terminal is swipe access only therefore the questions to be asked centre on boarding/flight closed procedures for ground/terminal staff. Also there's a need to re-think JQ's often illogical/inflexible positions that are designed to disempower and limited the decision making propensity of staff. I understand the lowest common denominator theory is a pathway for lower labour costs, but this often prevents common sense decisions being made.

My personal view is that if we haven't closed the a/c doors then its better to board a 'late to the gate' pax rather than have the ramp rummage around for 15 minutes finding bags to offload and delaying the other money paying pax who at the end of the day are customers/clients. Treat people with respect and a service culture and generally the behavioural response is positive - treat them poorly and they will have a lesser value/quality perception which is reflected in their behaviour.

AT

Yeh, then everybody turns up late because they know they’ll get on and this rubbish about how airlines treat people is rubbish. I’ve been flying for 50 years, never had a bag lost or damaged... maybe because I don’t buy a bag that’s made out of flimsy thin material held together by spit.
There’s no excuse for this type of behavior and blaming airlines is ridiculous, a rational person would just fly with someone else next time not break the law.
What you’re suggesting means if someone doesn’t like the way Myer treats them they should be able to run in and steal product then jump out through a window.